Reading the BoE, I fell on this:

"Defense Value increases the skill of defenders within fortifications. The rate is +10 Combat skill per Defense Value mius (Siege Equipment + Assault Gear)..."

First question: When is this rule applicable? Per the Great Pendragon Campaign, the siege rules are quite "high level" and they don't really deal with specific melee combat. If I go with the BoBII, we are told in the "Battlefield Obstacles" section (p.62-63) that high walls can't be climbed and that Ditches & Rampart gives +10/-20. I don't think that those bonuses add up with the BoE DV bonus... So in the end, I guess that the BoE DV melee bonuses are given for when a GM wants to simulate a siege as a standard melee. Am I right on this?

Second question: Is this +10 per DV bonus way too strong? I mean, if a knight with a 15 sword skill defends his 2 DV fortified manor, he gets a 35 skill? And what about the same knight who defends a simple motte and bailey castle with a total DV of 18? He gets critical hits all the time?

Third question: When we use BoE rules, should we sum up all the rings DV as stated in the Great Pendragon Campaign siege rules? Or should we consider only the current ring of defense the player knights are trying to breach or defend?

Fourth question: When are we going to have a proper Siege system in the BoB? I think sieges are part of the arthurian romance and player knights should be allowed to play a larger role in them then is described in the rules right now. Also, as soon as they get manors and estates, PKs are always at risk of being besieged and I always find it hard to simulate these events when they occur. I know there is an ok siege system published in a blog called the RPG corner, but I'd like to have official rules... Right now, there is a lot of confusion around DVs and I wish that it will be unified one day.

Apart from that, I want to know if, when I use the BoE with single manor vassal knights, I should consider them as rich knights when they do not suffer "lots" of damage (p.47 Shortage Results). I guess that vassal knights starts with Ordinary living and then drops if he suffers 3 lots of damage, but I'd like to be sure about this.

Finally, if a knight suffers damage to his estate, do his improvements still give him the same income as discretionary money or should we diminish it proportionally?

Aside from those questions, I have to say I really enjoyed BoE and BoBII. Good job!

Wow. I don't have the BoE, so can't comment on that...

How it used to work was that you get a reflexive modifier based on:
Defensive Value - Siege Equipment.

So if you had DV of 5, and enemy applied 2 points of Siege Equipment to the assault, your skill would be at +3 and his at -3. Which is much more reasonable, in my humble opinion.

I would not be surprised if Greg shows up soon with an errata on this.

Well, I guess Morien is going to be surprised here!


Reading the BoE, I fell on this:
"Defense Value increases the skill of defenders within fortifications. The rate is +10 Combat skill per Defense Value minus (Siege Equipment + Assault Gear)..."

Page 79


First question: When is this rule applicable? Per the Great Pendragon Campaign, the siege rules are quite "high level" and they don't really deal with specific melee combat. If I go with the BoBII, we are told in the "Battlefield Obstacles" section (p.62-63) that high walls can't be climbed and that Ditches & Rampart gives +10/-20. I don't think that those bonuses add up with the BoE DV bonus... So in the end, I guess that the BoE DV melee bonuses are given for when a GM wants to simulate a siege as a standard melee. Am I right on this?

Yes.
Also, remember that the newest rule always trumps previous rules.


Second question: Is this +10 per DV bonus way too strong?

I don't think so


I mean, if a knight with a 15 sword skill defends his 2 DV fortified manor, he gets a 35 skill?

Yes


And what about the same knight who defends a simple motte and bailey castle with a total DV of 18? He gets critical hits all the time?

Yes.
But your astonishment may be calmed by looking at a few of the facts.
First, note that the attacker has no help except a ladder to get up. No supporting archery fire, no damaged walls, etc.
For the sake of argument we will include the ladders as worth 1 point of Siege Gear. We will count that value because several ladders are being used. (I am just going to gloss this over because no one assaults a protected fort without support which will be handled below)
So the DV of the protected manor =1.
The attacker there is on a ladder, below the defending knight, holding on with one hand. He cannot move, dodge, parry or anything to help himself. The knight is a professional killer partially protected, higher up, with the single job of striking the same spot over and over.
Second, look at the number of defenders required. Let us presume that these minimal numbers are present.
If that manor is attacked with just six ladders, then one of them will be defended by a peasant. The modifier is (2 DV - 1 ladder) = +10, so the peasant has a skill of 2 + = 11. Your knight with a skill of 15 now has an attack skill of 25--still pretty deadly.

However,Let's just put in 1 point of Assault Gear archery fire to help out. The equation changes to be:
Modifier = 2 - 2 = 0. The peasant has his skill of 2 to defend against that knifeman who is climbing up, whose skill is 10.
Also, at that rate your knight has a skill of just 15.

Hmm, looks like I didn't include any bonus in case the archer or other support drives the DV negative, did I!
I'll check my submission and notes to see what is there.
Meanwhile, I will surge on


Third question: When we use BoE rules, should we sum up all the rings DV as stated in the Great Pendragon Campaign siege rules? Or should we consider only the current ring of defense the player knights are trying to breach or defend?

See Rings of Defense, page 81
Rings of Defense: The motte and bailey castle has
a unique feature among all these fortifications.
Note that the motte defense (normally 8) is raised
by the fortified hall (2). It contributes because the
area of the motte is so small that defenders in the
hall can help the defenders at the motte wall with
archery and observations.


Fourth question: When are we going to have a proper Siege system in the BoB? I think sieges are part of the arthurian romance and player knights should be allowed to play a larger role in them then is described in the rules right now. Also, as soon as they get manors and estates, PKs are always at risk of being besieged and I always find it hard to simulate these events when they occur. I know there is an ok siege system published in a blog called the RPG corner, but I'd like to have official rules... Right now, there is a lot of confusion around DVs and I wish that it will be unified one day.

You wish will come true.
When?
As soon as they are done.
I mean, I could be like a lot of game designers and put out a piece of crap that will generate an infinite amount of commentary.
Or I could wait and do it right, which is my normal method.
In fact though, they are being worked on by a very informed co-author whose work I really like so far. It will be a bit more than just siege rules because a siege requires more than just an assault. Thus it will have some rules of foragng and other materials that are relevant.
The rules will be derivative from the Book of Battle and work like those do.
And since time is limited and people have lives outside of KAP (well, some people anyway)
I can only beg for patience


Apart from that, I want to know if, when I use the BoE with single manor vassal knights, I should consider them as rich knights when they do not suffer "lots" of damage (p.47 Shortage Results). I guess that vassal knights starts with Ordinary living and then drops if he suffers 3 lots of damage, but I'd like to be sure about this.

Forgive this old man, but I don't quite understand what you are asking.
If it is not relevant to Siege, then please start a new thread when you re-ask this.


Finally, if a knight suffers damage to his estate, do his improvements still give him the same income as discretionary money or should we diminish it proportionally?

For now
If the Improvements are not destroyed then their produced income is the same. Whether it is discretionary or not is up to the player (under Gamemaster guidance of course). But if is is used as discretionary income, and not spent to replace the income lost through damage, then something has got to go! Every pence of income is scheduled for something, and if thee income is disrupted, so is the "something."


Aside from those questions, I have to say I really enjoyed BoE and BoBII. Good job!

Thank you.

The rules will be derivative from the Book of Battle and work like those do.

I'll be waiting as patiently as I can for those rules :D

I hadn't looked at fortification rules closely in BoE, but Greg's explanation makes sense. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought one set of rules didn't even let an assault go forward unless the siege gear brought the DV to 0.

Wow. Always impressive to have Greg Stafford himself answer my rules questions! I really do appreciate.

Great to know that you're working on a siege system. Coming from you, I know it will be great. Take your time, continue to work the way you did all those years: it gives good results.

As for my badly asked question about the default Standard of living for vassal knights in BoE, I apologize. English is not my first language and I sometimes struggle to get my ideas out of my head. Will try to be clearer next time.

Thanks again!

Great to know that you're working on a siege system. Coming from you, I know it will be great. Take your time, continue to work the way you did all those years: it gives good results.

Please note:
I am the secondary author on it
but it will still meet my standards
I am encouraging others to step in and write material, as I am slowing down a bit
We need people to pick up the banner
I encourage everyone to join in, and write to me if you wish to help out in any way


English is not my first language and I sometimes struggle to get my ideas out of my head. Will try to be clearer next time.

I would not have guessed this. Your English was quite good.
Even native speakers have difficulty phrasing complex questions.
Be brave! :)

Second question: Is this +10 per DV bonus way too strong? I mean, if a knight with a 15 sword skill defends his 2 DV fortified manor, he gets a 35 skill? And what about the same knight who defends a simple motte and bailey castle with a total DV of 18? He gets critical hits all the time?



Remember also the attackers will generally outnumber defenders...so the bonus will be split or diffused in some way.

NT

Remember also the attackers will generally outnumber defenders...so the bonus will be split or diffused in some way.


There is still a limit on how many men you can get up at the same time... This hypothetical DV 18 motte would allow an untrained peasant auto-crit against four knights per melee round.

I'd rather represent it the old way: +18 to skill, and then give the advantage to the defender by saying that the guys on the ladders can only use either shield or sword, leaving one hand free for climbing. And they can get up only one at the time, needing to make some headway to get to the parapet. And if knocked down, it is a long way to fall... These have proven in play more than dangerous enough for the intrepid knights, but not totally suicidal for PKs to participate in assaults.

The historical 'rule of thumb' when it came to assaults was 'DON'T', but when they did, the amount of men needed tended to be around 4-5 times the amount of defenders to have a chance of succeeding. More would be better, of course. Still, castles were taken by storm (rarely, as starving was the preferred option if treachery or surprise didn't work) without battering the walls down first with siege engines.

I am all for giving the defenders some advantages, but +10 / DV means that the old, high DVs are simply insane. At the same sentence, I am willing to concede that at low DVs, the bonus is rather miniscule, and would benefit from a rethink. Maybe something like 5+DV as the modifier to represent that even a modest ditch and rampart is enough to give the higher ground modifier? And a fortified manor likely has stairs or something you can defend, or annoy guys on high ladders.

For the sake of discussion, I continue
I am not demanding anything here, but the discussion is very useful
I have been convinced before!





Remember also the attackers will generally outnumber defenders...so the bonus will be split or diffused in some way.

There is still a limit on how many men you can get up at the same time... This hypothetical DV 18 motte would allow an untrained peasant auto-crit against four knights per melee round.

?
Since a combat round normally allows a single combat then this peasant is...
...what,
running back and fort along the ramparts knocking guys down? I'd not allow that in my game.
...knocking four guys off the ladder at a time? I'd not allow that either.

I'll say it again: a bunch of guys on scaling ladders without any additional support deserve to be killed wholesale.


I'd rather represent it the old way: +18 to skill, and then give the advantage to the defender by saying that the guys on the ladders can only use either shield or sword, leaving one hand free for climbing. And they can get up only one at the time, needing to make some headway to get to the parapet. And if knocked down, it is a long way to fall... These have proven in play more than dangerous enough for the intrepid knights, but not totally suicidal for PKs to participate in assaults.

YPWV
I usually don't have knight perform an assault by ladder. Way too dangerous.
They are waiting for a breakthrough.
I think history would verify this tactic.
Knights on ladders would be an exceptional event.


The historical 'rule of thumb' when it came to assaults was 'DON'T', but when they did, the amount of men needed tended to be around 4-5 times the amount of defenders to have a chance of succeeding. More would be better, of course.

The 4:1 advantage is typical of modern warfare
I don't know of a source for going up ladders against walls.


Still, castles were taken by storm (rarely, as starving was the preferred option if treachery or surprise didn't work) without battering the walls down first with siege engines.

Yes, agreed.
In fact, it would be normal to try to storm the walls right away, with archery support. If the castle is under garrisoned then it falls.
If the garrison is weak from hunger, then again success is likely.
Against a fully garrisoned castle, much more rare.
I am sure other example exist, but the only one that comes to mind is Joan of Arc leading her men against the English.


I am all for giving the defenders some advantages, but +10 / DV means that the old, high DVs are simply insane.


Yes, agreed.

At the same sentence, I am willing to concede that at low DVs, the bonus is rather miniscule, and would benefit from a rethink. Maybe something like 5+DV as the modifier to represent that even a modest ditch and rampart is enough to give the higher ground modifier? And a fortified manor likely has stairs or something you can defend, or annoy guys on high ladders.

The basis of my contention is that even a timber motte and bailey was very, very effective in defense
If they were not, then they would not have been so many of them

I think that success in an assault was not in defeating the defenders at the top of the ladder, but in having too many ladders for the defenders to defend again.

The basis of my contention is that even a timber motte and bailey was very, very effective in defense
If they were not, then they would not have been so many of them

I think that success in an assault was not in defeating the defenders at the top of the ladder, but in having too many ladders for the defenders to defend again.


I agree that the older modifiers were probably too small. However, the +10 / DV becomes silly very quickly. You can put untrained peasants on the walls at DV 4 and they will knock knights off the ladders with an autocritical each. So why did those fortifications in BoM need trained soldiers to man, again? Not to mention that it is damn boring to play:
Option 1: There is someone on the wall. You are dead.
Option 2: There is no one on the wall. You win.

I am not arguing that a ditch and rampart with a palisade is not a huge advantage for the defenders. Of course it is. Worked for the Romans more often than not. And a full on stone castle with high walls is even more formidable. Problem is that with +10 / DV, it scales up much too quickly in a d20 system, IMHO.

The old modifiers were reflexive, if I recall correctly, so DV 5 was +5 to defender and -5 to an attacker. So in principle, it made the defending spearman 'equal' to a knight and the attacking knight 'equal' to a footman. That is already a big deal, especially if you add other environmental hazards (arrows on the approach, dropped rocks on the climb/foot of the wall, falling off the ladder if knocked down, unable to use both shield and weapon).

How good is a ditch and a rampart, really, when you are already in melee? Depends on the grade of the slope, I'd assume, but assuming that it is something you can actually climb without a ladder, is it really that much worse than lying on your back when another guy is trying to bash your head in?

I also think the dv to weapon bonus is way to high. Before these rules and consulting modifiers in the core rules, we can see that its not consistant with what we have as example in the core rulebook.

Even scaling a ladder onto a heavy fortification with an archer shooting at the climber, I dont think I would assign more than a +10/-10 reflexive modifier, such a modifier is so big that if Lancelot in his prime, tried to assault a lone knight from a ladder on a wall, he has about 50-50 odds. And if your a regular De Falt, sword 19, thats a 9 vs 29, thats suicide not bravery!

right now the modifier is +10 per DV, so in my example a mere two DV grants +20 or about the same as the reflexive modifier above. I think the number is way to much, I like a reflexive modifier of +1/DV. That seems about right, even so I think it should cap of at -10/+10 because that is a huge modifier in this game!

There has been discussion that the reflex modifiers are already to severe in Pendragon, I often give out only half the reflexive bonus or penalty, and in more extreme cases the full -5/+5 but I have never handed out anything greater than that in gameplay, unless the pk was going for combined actions.

The historical 'rule of thumb' when it came to assaults was 'DON'T', but when they did, the amount of men needed tended to be around 4-5 times the amount of defenders to have a chance of succeeding. More would be better, of course.

The 4:1 advantage is typical of modern warfare
I don't know of a source for going up ladders against walls.


I always heard the classic force multiplier was 3:1...


T.

At the bottom line, I think that converting DV to melee combat modifiers is a bit too abstract. I think I prefer to use the main rulebook's melee combat modifiers to simulate the fight itself. I would use DV strictly to determine what happens with the siege on a greater scale. In a perfect system, those 2 things (PK melee combat prowesses and the General's siege mastery) would influence themselves. For example, if the PK General wins his siege roll (modified by the castle's DV and the attackers' SE) against the castle's General, player knights could benefit from a bonus in their melee combat. On the other side, PKs doing particularly well in their melee phase could change the outcome of the siege even if their General failed slightly.

As much as I love Pendragon's historical side, I do not need a perfectly realistic siege system. I'd prefer a reasonably believable one that's brutal most of the time but that also let players shine in some epic ways from time to time (exactly what the latest battle system is, by the way).

BTW, I am still not fixed on my work
I am enjoying he discussion, if for no other reason th it forces me to look at my motivations




The basis of my contention is that even a timber motte and bailey was very, very effective in defense
If they were not, then they would not have been so many of them
I think that success in an assault was not in defeating the defenders at the top of the ladder, but in having too many ladders for the defenders to defend again.

I agree that the older modifiers were probably too small. However, the +10 / DV becomes silly very quickly. You can put untrained peasants on the walls at DV 4 and they will knock knights off the ladders with an autocritical each. So why did those fortifications in BoM need trained soldiers to man, again?

To lead and motivate the peasants


Not to mention that it is damn boring to play:
Option 1: There is someone on the wall. You are dead.
Option 2: There is no one on the wall. You win.

OK
I sense that you are interested in gearing this to be playable by player knights on the ladders
My motivation is to make castles as well neigh invincible as they were. historically
this is an old game design dichotomy


I am not arguing that a ditch and rampart with a palisade is not a huge advantage for the defenders. Of course it is. Worked for the Romans more often than not. And a full on stone castle with high walls is even more formidable. Problem is that with +10 / DV, it scales up much too quickly in a d20 system, IMHO.
The old modifiers were reflexive, if I recall correctly, so DV 5 was +5 to defender and -5 to an attacker. So in principle, it made the defending spearman 'equal' to a knight and the attacking knight 'equal' to a footman. That is already a big deal, especially if you add other environmental hazards (arrows on the approach, dropped rocks on the climb/foot of the wall, falling off the ladder if knocked down, unable to use both shield and weapon).

I do not think that a man on a ladder, with zero maneuverability, is the equal of a man standing five or six feet above him who can move around


How good is a ditch and a rampart, really, when you are already in melee? Depends on the grade of the slope, I'd assume, but assuming that it is something you can actually climb without a ladder, is it really that much worse than lying on your back when another guy is trying to bash your head in?

If it is just a ditch and ramparts that you can walk up without trouble, I agree
more than 45 degrees, footing is a real problem
but if we are just discussing a ditch and rampart, then I'd argue it's not really even much of a fortification and not subject to the rules

At the bottom line, I think that converting DV to melee combat modifiers is a bit too abstract. I think I prefer to use the main rulebook's melee combat modifiers to simulate the fight itself. I would use DV strictly to determine what happens with the siege on a greater scale. In a perfect system, those 2 things (PK melee combat prowesses and the General's siege mastery) would influence themselves. For example, if the PK General wins his siege roll (modified by the castle's DV and the attackers' SE) against the castle's General, player knights could benefit from a bonus in their melee combat. On the other side, PKs doing particularly well in their melee phase could change the outcome of the siege even if their General failed slightly.

Well, this is pretty much what I've had in mind in the discussion


As much as I love Pendragon's historical side, I do not need a perfectly realistic siege system. I'd prefer a reasonably believable one that's brutal most of the time but that also let players shine in some epic ways from time to time (exactly what the latest battle system is, by the way).

I agree here
I see I didn't really finish my comment above about story
I'd do as you say for the PCs on the ladders--use the combat rules

And I will point out somethign else important:
for most commoners a critical success would be a whopping 4d6 anyway

I am enjoying he discussion, if for no other reason th it forces me to look at my motivations


Likewise, Greg. :)



I sense that you are interested in gearing this to be playable by player knights on the ladders
My motivation is to make castles as well neigh invincible as they were. historically


I am arguing that we can have both.



I do not think that a man on a ladder, with zero maneuverability, is the equal of a man standing five or six feet above him who can move around


Agreed. Once you are on a ladder, the modifier should be bigger than +5/-5. But note that:
a) I was nowhere saying that the two guys were equivalent. I was saying that their 'value' was reversed by a 'mere' +5/-5 reflexive modifier, and
b) I was suggesting something like 5+DV earlier as the modifier. :)

Add ladders and all that fun, and the modifier could climb up, like Leondegrance pointed out. +10/-10 is already huge and +15/-15 will see humble footmen killing knights like flies if they try to get up the ladder. But peasants won't be enough. Trying to send soldiers up a +20/-20 wall is grounds for a mutiny, as it would be suicide. (Actually, even +10/-10 is suicidal for a normal humble footman with skill 10...)



If it is just a ditch and ramparts that you can walk up without trouble, I agree
more than 45 degrees, footing is a real problem
but if we are just discussing a ditch and rampart, then I'd argue it's not really even much of a fortification and not subject to the rules


Yeah, that is what I figure. If the footing is a real problem, +5/-5 is OK. If footing is not a problem, then it is not really a fortification at all, just a bump on the landscape.

However, under current rules, Ditch & Rampart is DV 2, giving the defender +20 skill. Which practically ensures one sided slaughter. So you are not being consistent here, Greg. :)

Ditch & Rampart + Palisade is DV 4 in BoM, making it impregnable to pretty much all knights save the greatest heroes while impassioned, even when held by unskilled peasants (skill 0+40 = 40 = autocrit). Granted, a bit of arrow storm and such will lower the DV enough to make this more practicable. Which is actually another point. Thanks to the huge multiplier, the castles go from 'impossible' to 'walk in a park' really quickly.

So what would the castles look like under, say, 5+DV system? Well, taking the numbers from GPC p. 16...
Standard Motte-and-Bailey (5/3): +10/-10 reflexive modifier. Impregnable against peasants and common footsoldiers. Knights might have a chance, but common knights would tend to falter as well, especially if the garrison includes knights, too. If the keep can help the outer wall, this becomes even tougher at +13/-13.
Sarum Castle (3/10/11): +8/-8 on the city walls, which seem pretty weak (ditch and rampart with some kind of weak palisade?), but would still be a major obstacle against normal footsoldiers. The real castle inside is a +15/-15, which renders it impregnable against assault, unless there is heavy investment in assault gear & siege weapons, and even then it will be a bloody victory.

So I think that would work. Heroic PKs might be able to carry the (weakened or wooden) walls by assault (heck, you can stack the deck even more there by having them fight -two- guys at the top of the wall poking spears at them while they climb up the ladder), but for the most part, it would not be practicable to try.

Hi, I'm the one working on the siege rules. I've certainly considered all the problems you've brought up. At the moment, I'm still basing the rules on the +10 per DV modifier. This seems to make sense in terms of the basic rules. For 1 DV you would get: +5/-5 for a height advantage and +5/-5 for bad footing. Good so far as it goes.

Obviously, with stronger castles, unmodified DVs will lead to obscenely high weapons skills. A peasant with a weapon skill of 2 on a 10 DV wall has a skill of 102--but this assumes equal strength armies with no other modifiers. Remember that the DV bonus is modified by a number of things like siege equipment, troop strength ratio, garrison strength etc. Basing your calculations on just the DV isn't really correct because it doesn't give the whole picture. That peasant on the wall should have a huge bonus if he and his friends are only dealing with one ladder and not being shot at.

My goal within the assault rules is to make it reasonable (though not automatic) for a well lead, well supplied, motivated army to take a 'typical' fortification. A 4:1 or 5:1 advantage was generally considered necessary for a successful assault. Such an attacking force would have more fighters and be able to deploy more siege equipment (esp arrows) than the defenders. The castle DV is the starting point, not the endpoint of modifiers to the WS (and probably Siege roll).

As a note, within the overall 'siege' rules there will be paths that lead to capitulation, treason, and sneak attacks. So, there will be other ways to take a castle besides just direct assault.

NT

Please consider a limit to the boost in weapon skill? There is no reason a peasant should have 102 sword skill or anyone for that matter.

Why not use reflexive modifiers, instead of using one huge bonus to the defenders? Wouldnt the attacker have some penalty?

Having a stronger fortification should not artificially boost weapon skills. A +5/-5 across the board would already have a huge impact on a battle and the bonus should cap off at +20 or -10/+10 for a defender, having higher DV castles should mean more defensible points but not stacking the DV for every defender to such high levels.

What does a 10 DV wall look like? What makes it +100 to weapon skill for the defender? Why cant this peasant on the wall never miss his swings all of a sudden when he has no training at all, against Sir Lancelot? There needs to be a limit, the way this is being implemented is not realistic.

Not only does the Dv/skill level need to be less, I think the wall values need to be reduced. Or perhaps a different mechanic all together needs to be thought of for the siege rules and how it affects individual combat.

Sorry Eothar, but while the modifers might be good for determing if the siege would work, they arent realistic for one on one modifiers. If Sir Lancelot is coming up a ladder, with a peasant defending on a really thick and tall wall, he isnt going to have any trouble catching and pinning the peasants strike as he reaches the top and throws the peasant off the wall because his 39 sword skill is suppose to be something special.

Please consider a limit to the boost in weapon skill? There is no reason a peasant should have 102 sword skill or anyone for that matter.



First, I understand the concerns. I have essentially the same ones, but you need to focus on the overall calculation, not one step.

The assault system will run a bit like Battle. That is, the knight will make only one WS roll per round against and abstract opponent. The high WS abstracts fighting multiple opponents, just being dumped off the ladder, flanking fire from towers, burning oil, dropped rocks, etc. It is, in a sense, the total threat that the attacker faces. So, while Sir Lancelot is climbing up his ladder...the peasant just tips the ladder over. Lancelot never gets to actually fight the peasant.

Again, you should not focus on the value of WS+DV*10. It is just the first step. There should be almost no cases in which that is the final value. It assumes no siege equipment by either side, a full garrison, equal troop numbers, no bonus from commanders' rolls, and equal quality troops. That calculation assumes one peasant on the wall and one knight outside the castle...with no siege equipment etc. The knight should lose badly while he climbs up the wall barehanded.

For a real assault, the attacker would outnumber the defender, employ more siege equipment and items like siege towers all of which will lower the effective DV. That peasant on the wall will very quickly go from 102 to something like 10 for all but the most massive castles. Similarly, most garrisons will almost never be at full strength thereby lowering the DV effects.

So, stop focusing on DV*10. I agree is sounds ridiculous at first, but it is only the first step in the calculation. To be honest, my problem at the moment is that it is too easy for the attacker to take fortifications. In fact, I may have to limit how low the defenders' WS bonus can be lowered.

Either way, it is still a work in progress, and any input is welcome.

NT

However, under current rules, Ditch & Rampart is DV 2, giving the defender +20 skill. Which practically ensures one sided slaughter. So you are not being consistent here, Greg. :)

Ditch & Rampart + Palisade is DV 4 in BoM, making it impregnable to pretty much all knights save the greatest heroes while impassioned, even when held by unskilled peasants (skill 0+40 = 40 = autocrit). Granted, a bit of arrow storm and such will lower the DV enough to make this more practicable. Which is actually another point. Thanks to the huge multiplier, the castles go from 'impossible' to 'walk in a park' really quickly.



(1) Take your DV 4 above. Under the BoEstates rules (I think) that gives a peasant a skill of 42 (2+10*DV4).

(2) Let's say the attacker outnumbers the defender 3:1.

(3) The attacker applies £2 of siege gear, the defender £1.

(4) The peasants' WS is now 2 + 10*(DV4-2+1) = 2 + 30 = 32.

(5) The defenders' have to split their attacks so WS = 32/3 = ~11
For a WS10 garrison WS = (WS10 + 30)/ 3 = 13
For a WS15 knight WS = (WS15 +30)/3 = 15
For a WS20 knight WS = (WS20 + 30)/3 = 17

Seems perfectly reasonable (if not a little weak on the defenders' side)--though oddly the higher your WS the less you gain from the wall.

RE walk in the park. The amount of siege gear that the sides can apply will be limited by the number and type of units. So, 30 guys attacking a manor aren't going to be able to employ £10 of arrows.

NT

The division helps quite a bit, actually. It works in the 'battlefield view', although not for the blow by blow personal view. But since your intent is to be in the battlefield view that might work.

It is still a huge bonus, though. Assume that my manor is fortified with the ditch and rampart and a palisade. And I cram all my peasants in (assuming the Area 1 = Pop 1 from Lordly Domains is still valid). That gives me my levy to defend the manor, or to put it another way, on average 50 men or so.

If I take the Farmer from the rulebook as the baseline, they have Mace 8 as a skill. Now, were I a wealthy, smart and most of all confident in my peasants' goodwill (as I most likely would be if I am their main protection against raiding Saxons), I might buy real maces for the lot. They are pretty expensive, at 30d a piece, so 8 per £1. Outfitting my whole levy would be about £6, which while expensive, is not that bad given that my peasants now do 4d6 against any dastardly knights or Saxon thegns, instead of measly 2d6. Not sure if this is a big difference in the Siege rules, but anyway.

But lets assume instead that Skill 2 that you quoted, Eothar, and assume spears since they are cheap and easy to use. To have even odds against my fierce untrained peasants, the enemy needs to come at me with a force of 150 trained footmen and 1 DV worth of siege equipment. Or just 100 trained soldiers and 2 DV worth of siege equipment. Or alternatively, 200 soldiers with no siege equipment. That is one heck of a raiding party, that is, equivalent to the trained footsoldiers of the whole Salisbury army in 4th Ed. A small party of raiding knights have no chance whatsoever. Not that I am too troubled by that. There should be some benefit to the fortifications, after all.

Now if it was 50 footsoldiers vs. 200 footsoldiers outside the walls, then that would make sense. Granted, bit more oomph for the humble ditch and a palisade than I would have expected, but within the correct ball park. 50 untrained peasants vs. 200 footsoldiers feels a bit off, though.

What if the bonus would be +5 per DV? My Ditch and Palisade would give +20, enough to boost my peasantry to skill 22. About an even match with 100 footsoldiers. Add a preparatory arrow storm (-1 DV) and a battering ram (-1 DV?) and 100 trained pros will slaughter my fearful mob. Sounds about right. How about my own trained war band of 50 (with skill 10+20)? Well, they would be equal to 150 footsoldiers outside and give even 100 a run for their money with the arrow storm and a battering ram. Sounds much better for me, as a benchmark, for a rather humble fortification. And this would make the skill of the defenders count for more, too, as exemplified in the above.

A DV 10 castle would be +50, so you'd need 6:1 odds to take it with even chance. That feels a bit low, though, I admit. Unless there is a limit how many men you can throw at the castle all at once (which I think is reasonable). Like the maximum is divide by three or four. In which case, assaulting a fully garrisoned, real castle will require some siege equipment and loads of men. Which sounds about right.

Another thing that comes to mind is how easy it is to lower the DV of a fortification with siege equipment. IMHO, it makes little sense that £10 worth of siege equipment is able to neutralize a DV 10 castle that costs hundreds if not thousands to build. First thing that came to mind would be to make that an exponential series (£1 for -1, £2 for -2, £4 for -3, £8 for -4... etc), which would make it real expensive to try and reduce a true castle with siege equipment alone. Instead, you reduce some of it, and then pay with blood by pouring enough men into the fire. Which is something I think you wished to accomplish, too? One problem that I'd see there is the way the defender and the attacker siege equipments cancel each other out... although I guess it could stay as a £-to-£ comparison and then just calculate the DV reduction.

In this case, the DV 10 castle would take -6 (for £63, so definitely not so cheap anymore) to get it down to DV 4, which then would be even odds with a 3:1 manpower superiority.

The division helps quite a bit, actually. It works in the 'battlefield view', although not for the blow by blow personal view. But since your intent is to be in the battlefield view that might work.


I've given some thought to a more blow by blow scale too, say for attacking a manor. I think this set would work as an add on to skirmish rules, not 'assault'. We'll see. I've been messing around with this a lot to try to 1) keep it simple, 2) make it match with BoE, 3) make it actually work.

I've been messing around with this a lot to try to 1) keep it simple, 2) make it match with BoE, 3) make it actually work.


What was it that they said about 'fast, good and cheap; pick any two'? :)

I know I can be pretty argumentative when it comes to stuff I like to talk about. And I like to tinker with the rules, especially when I dislike the results they give. That is not to say that the are necessarily bad rules, just that I personally might have done things differently, like values of some modifiers. So while I of course hope you listen to suggestions, I hope you do not take the critique personally. And hey, I might even be wrong. Not like I am writing a book here! ;)

So good luck with the castle and siege rules. I would personally enjoy seeing something that would work both in a personal combat as well as in the battle round frame. Especially nice would be if it would give the GM nice 'hooks' to hang personal scale happenings on, like:
"Volunteer to scale the ladders amongst the first wave (Reckless, Valorous). Your weapon skill is additional -5. If you succeed, fight a duel again an enemy knight on the wall. If you win, you have achieved a foothold on the walls! (Glory 100, +1 Siege Success)"

One of my biggest grievances of the old Battle system and my primary motivation for still-hypothetical upgrade to BoBII is that the old Battle system gave the players very little to actually do to influence the way the battle went, unless they rolled a crit or their battalion was routing. I ended up doing some patchwork there myself, especially at the small scale battles, where PKs actually were battalion commanders, too.

Anyway, simple is good if you are throwing NPCs into the fire and sitting back at the command tent sipping wine with your pals, but if it is the PKs in the thick of it, it would be nice to craft a scene so that their decisions and dice throws actually have some meaning to the outcome. A tall order, I admit. :)